Talk:Justin Trudeau/Archive 2

Moxy it appears you have whitewashed/censored critical content in this article. The sex assault allegations, which are obviously critical of trudeau, and made headlines across the globe: Your revision of 21:59, June 7, 2018: you simply deleted the entire section, giving an edit summary (your words verbatim) "old stuff with zero charges....and sourced to buzzfeed"

• 1. It wasn't just sourced to buzzfeed; it was also sourced to The Hill. You could've just added citation needed instead of deleting the whole section. Or better yet, you could've added more citations, as it made headlines in every corner of the planet - CNN, BBC, Guardian, WashingtonPost, TimesofIsrael, NYTimes, NPR, JapanTimes... even the HindustanTimes.
• 2. Being "old stuff" (your words) does not disqualify from inclusion into wikipedia.
• 3. "zero charges" (your words): criminal charges are not a pre-requisite to inclusion into wikipedia.

From WP:NPOV: It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources

Diffs here: [[1]]

Moxy - can you give the community a reason (other than NPOV censorship) why you chose to delete the entire section in your edit of 21:59, June 7, 2018 ? (And no, "undue weight!" or WP:BALANCE is not an answer, considering this issue reverberated across the world, yet you deleted it outright).Wisefroggy (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

All explained in sections above. What would be a better approach would be to propose some sort of addition over attacking an editor over content that is currently in article after a talk.--Moxy 🍁 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Where? The only explanation you've given for deleting the entire section on [21:59, June 7, 2018] is your edit summary: old stuff with zero charges....and sourced to buzzfeed. Wisefroggy (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pls review the sequence of edits ....note how the info was not lost but moved/restored in subsequent edits....as you should be aware of as per the talk you were in above. Again if you have any content that you see fit for inclusion pls bring it up.--Moxy 🍁 03:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit sequence per your suggestion. You deleted the section on 21:59, June 7, 2018. It was restored by a different user (Ivar the Boneful) on 20:33, July 2, 2018, approx 1 month later. I further checked the article talk page, your talk page, and the talk page of User:Ivar the Boneful, and there is no record of you discussing your intention to restore the section after your unilateral (non-consensus) deletion. So I put the question to you again, Moxy: If not censorship: what is your explanation for deleting the sexual assault allegation section on [21:59, June 7, 2018]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The explanation is clear in the edit summary...junk sources with zero progress in the events. It was later rewritten with better sourcea and has now been there in one form or another since....so our process has worked perfectly thus far. My last response to this trolling. -Moxy 🍁 03:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have started a conversation at Talk:2019 Canadian federal election about whether the black/brownface stuff should be spun off into another article. I would suggest folks comment there if they are so inclined so that we do not have two conversations going.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Further to the discussion there, I created a stub here. I expect discussion will continue on the talk page there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please put in the article that Trudeau is a "serial blackfacer", in addition to being a politician? Thanks. Bringeroftruth92 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I take it you mean to add "serial blackfacer" to the opening lead sentence. Pls review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Moxy 🍁 16:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims the lead is part of the article. You seem to disagree. Is that correct? Bringeroftruth92 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, please reread, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to understand why such a phrase cannot be used in this Wikipedia article. And. No one is suggesting the lead is not part of a Wikipedia article. Please take another look at [2] to see how the lead and articles are constructed. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please point to where I've said anything about the lead and not the article. Bringeroftruth92 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section.

• per WP:CRITS. There seems to be no other place to put these two bits of content within the article but we must not signal a position on the content that is EITHER positive or negative. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a criticism section; it is a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of a "Controversy" section is desribed as an entirely valid approach at [[3]] Wisefroggy (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Would be best to read our WP:Rules over an WP:Essay with little merit. ..our policies=Wp:Structure Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. WP:BLPBALANCE =Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. WP:NPOV =discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic..--Moxy 🍁 20:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree and apologize. When I came to the page I didn't see or scroll to the top which I should have, and would have seen I was dealing with an essay not a policy or guideline. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My comment above: criticism and controversy are generally seen as much the same. I did mix them up though. I think I mentioned this before but if not, when we open a section that can be padded with either specifically negative or positive content we are in danger of creating bias. This is what our policies and guidelines are saying. I've reverted "Controversies" to "Other". I'm not attached to "Other" and if there's something better I'd be happy to go with that better heading. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Still have an edit war going with some involved not here on the talk page. Soooooo how can we solve this. Current format has a few problems. I think "Media coverage" is not the best but most neutral till the stuff is incorporated into the campaign for 2019 section to come. All should review WP:BRD and... WP:3RR as its best be around for the talk.--Moxy 🍁 02:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I no longer support the use of "Controversies" as the section title. That said, I think using the specific names of the events allows us to be precise without any questions of NPOV violations. WP:CRITS says "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". I suggest using the section titles "2000 Kokanee Summit" and "Use of racial makeup". Both these titles specify the sections topic while maintaining a NPOV. TrailBlzr (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I like "2000 Kokanee Summit" but "racial makeup" has two problems....first "racial makeup" in Canada as a term is associated with ethnicity and population diversity....secondly it may be harsh to American eras like "black face". What about "Face painting incidents"?--Moxy 🍁 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts: How about Other as a subheading under Personal life and then separate sub sub headings, like 2000 Kokanee summit and maybe something like Inappropriate costume scandal....or Racial costume scandal. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure there is such a thing or phrase as a racial costume.:O] Littleolive oil (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Just be factual and call it what it is: "Blackface Incidents". There already exists a wikipedia Blackface article - to rename that "Racial painting" or some such would be absurd.

Same applies to "Sexual Misconduct Allegations" - that is what they are. To call it "Kokanee Summit" or whatever would be misleading, as the summit itself is entirely non-notable. What is notable are the "Sexual Misconduct Allegations", and I can think of no other 3-or-4 word header to accurately, factually, and concisely describe the content. If any of you can think of a more accurate/factual/concise title, I'm all ears. Just be factual Wisefroggy (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Also very important: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Obviously something like a sex assault reflects poorly... it is not neutral content. But it is not up to us to sugarcoat content to make it appear "neutral" - that would be whitewashing, and would be wrong. Our duty is neutral editing, not neutral content. Wisefroggy (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been pointed to sections in our NPOV policy that explains why section titles need great care. The essay your pointing to is about content...... that we all agree is not censored or white-washed in the article.--Moxy 🍁 22:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In no particular order:

• Wikipedia does in fact require neutral content but neutral content does not mean an editor can only add content that is neutral but instead refers to the state of an article in reference to mainstream sources; the weight of content per those sources and per the article content. We require that our content reflect the sources in terms of significance and weight because it is not our job to influence the reader, but simply to reflect the sources. So in this case that Trudeau appeared at a party many years ago, well before he entered political office, and with brown skin, and that he also appeared a couple of times in black face, again, well before his political career is not comparable to the length of his entire life or even total time in office. Sources referencing this aspects of Trudeau's life while they seem like a lot do not compare to the number of sources which measure the rest of his life. This is how weight is determined.
• That there is a blackface article on Wikipedia has zero bearing on what we are doing here.
• We discuss essays above. They are opinions only with out community support. This Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content is an essay
• The problem with calling the section blackface is that the first instance of Trudeau wearing dark makeup was not blackface, although perhaps just as offensive.

No sure what the wording should be but it must be neutral in tone and per weight. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We could merge the info into the new 2019 section.....say something like. "At the beginning of the campaign images and videos were released of Justin....".--Moxy 🍁 22:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as a solution. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

These pictures and videos span several years in the 1990's and early 2000's; it is wrong to put it in a 2019 Election section.

Similarly, these blackface pictures and videos speak to trudeau the man, not the election; again it is wrong to put them in the 2019 election section Wisefroggy (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think its very much part of the election as for the 2019 election article that would have to be talked about over there. PS pls keep the quotes to a minimum MOS:QUOTES ...summaries or let the sources give context for quotes no need to quote summaries.--Moxy 🍁 03:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would we include a comment by anyone, MP included that is so inaccurate. Trudeau did not paint his face and hands while a PM. He painted himself as a young man and as a teenager. This MP is saying, in effect, that Trudeau made these mistakes as PM. We as editors must not add content we know to be wrong simply because it is sourced especially in a BLP. It is not in our remit to create content or articles using such inaccuracies in a way that implies accuracy. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why....just one of many many comments. State the facts. ...use links to sources so full cotext is seen over copy pasting cherry picked quotes.--Moxy 🍁 02:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

re: trudeau in blackface video: I added a single quotation to the article, sourced ver-batim from the reporter who broke the story. The quote is as follows:

The video shows Trudeau "covered in what appears to be dark makeup and raising his hands in the air while laughing, sticking his tongue out and making faces. He’s wearing a white T-shirt, and his jeans are ripped at the knees. It appears as though his arms and legs are covered in makeup as well."

Three times Moxy has reverted/deleted this quote [[4]][[5]][[6]].

By deleting this quote, the reader does not know what is in the video, other than it is "racist dress" - which of course is conclusory and subjective. The reader is left.... in the dark. I see absolutely no reason why this quote should be censored. The quote is factual, concise, relevant, and entirely adds to the wikipedia body of knowledge. I repeat: this quote entirely describes what is in the video, and entirely adds to the wikipedia body of knowledge.

Moxy, can you explain why you think this quote should be deleted?

Wisefroggy (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• see below..--Moxy 🍁 05:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy I checked your link, it doesn't explain why you've deleted this. If you are referring to MOS:QUOTES, the very first line is "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles"

I am still trying to understand why you think a single relevant fully-contextual quote should be deleted, despite satisfying all criteria for MOS:QUOTES. If you can come up with a better solution, other than wholesale whitewashing/deletion/censoring, please let us know.

Kindly put your explanation here, so I can understand what your issue is, instead of just supplying a link.Wisefroggy (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Simply no need to copy a summary by a reporter ....do it it in your own words...stop copy pasting everything. " Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. " ....PS Trudeau’s apology for blackface photos seems to be readily accepted in Quebec--Moxy 🍁 15:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You said ".do it it in your own words...stop copy pasting everything". I will do as you suggestWisefroggy (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Yes, I followed your link to the toronto star article. The wikipedia content you purport to be in the citation is simply not there. The wikipedia content at issue: "majority of Canadians ... were not bothered". Moxy: kindly paste an excerpt from the citation which says anything similar to "majority of Canadians", because I can't find it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed wording and added 4 refs...easily found by a google search.--Moxy 🍁 15:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Moxy... the WP content: "majority of Canadians ... were not bothered" was not 'easily found by a google search', because it was not in the 4 citations you supplied. Yet you persistently (four(4) times!) deleted the {failed verification} tag. Instead of edit-warring, what you should have done is investigated why {failed verification} happened, and 'Changed wording' accordingly (which apparently you have now done).

WP does not allow us to fabricate sugar coatings. Please ensure WP:NPOV is followed - this appears to be a recurring problem Wisefroggy (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well over half of the section on the 2019 election is devoted to blackface incidents. This means that Wikipedia is signaling to the reader that most of what has happened leading up to the election is unimportant so unimportant there is no summary of it in this article, and apparently given the amount of text the black face incidents are multiple times more important. That is a blatantly Undue Weight. This isn't a gossip publication but an encyclopedia and we have guidelines and policies that aid in writing encyclopedic content. The detailed description of the video is a very iffy description in terms of accuracy and quite possibly original research. I have reduced content slightly while retaining basic the information. Even so the content still violates UNDUE.Littleolive oil (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)My edit summary: "...which is opinion of editor on what Trudeau is wearing and doing. Not WP compliant and is a form of OR..." should be ignored since I found news source that describes the video. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet you deleted it anyway. Littleolive oil WhiteWashing is NOT ALLOWED.Wisefroggy (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem: blackface section should NOT be in the 2019 election section. The Blackface happened in the 1990's and early 2000's - not in 2019. The fact the videos were release in 2019 is the only relevance to the election. The blackface should be in its own section, which I will create unless someone has a better idea. Wisefroggy (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Could someone point out consensus for the video description? This is a BLP and the video description is trivial as well as overkill on the issue in my opinion.Littleolive oil (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

See aboveWisefroggy (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Single-purpose account should be blocked.'--Moxy 🍁 14:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wisefroggy. Because you can find content in a source does not mean you should include that content in an article. Wikipedia has multiple policies and guidelines which together advise on what and how to write an article. You really have to stop telling other editors they are whitewashing article content when they adhere to Wikipedia. The black/brown face incidents while regrettable, in relation to Trudeau's life as a whole and to his premiership are minor incidents most of which took place when he was a young person and not while he was Prime Minister. Where to place that content has been the subject of past discussion and the result was to anchor that content in a section on this page. Those of us involved in that discussion did not contest that move. You are adding every detail of the black face incident which weights that content in relation to other more significant content in this article and to a human life in general. This is the very reason we have the BLP policy. How easy it is for us to create content that can impact another human being. We and you don't have that right and doing so will impact an editor's editing privileges. There is much more significant content that describes the value or lack of, of a Canadian Prime Minister, the main reason Trudeau is significant to Wikipedia. That is where we should have detail.

I don't see consensus to include the video or a description of the video. Please link that discussion. Otherwise you seem to be confused about your allegation that there is consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• I actually don't mind SPAs IF the editing is fair and neutral. I'm not sure that is the case here and certainly a few days before an election editors should be extra careful to not give the impression they are editing to support one side or another. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wisefroggy: Please read the sources. Asking for verification for content that is clearly sourced is disruptive. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• They are just messing about...wasting our time...clear as day what is being said just need to search.--Moxy 🍁 15:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was gonna work on this addition last night, but decided to hold off (which honestly with the lock on the page atm, I'm sorta regretting). But I'd suggest a few changes to this section once the lock is lifted:

• Section header "Publication University of Laval: assessment of Trudeau's campaign promises", change this to "Assessment of campaign promises". The origin of the publication is unnecessary for a header, and we don't need to be told the section pertains to Trudeau.... in an article about Trudeau.
• "An publication based on the investigations of 20 respected academics, Assessing Justin Trudeau's Liberal Government: 353 Promises and a Mandate for Change," should be shortened and changed to "In October 2019, the University of Laval published a study by 20 academics that found..." This provides the end date (sort of) for the study, provides the publishing institution (removed in suggestion for section header), and removes the word "respected" (per WP:PUFFERY).
• Percent -> Per cent, as this is a Canadian article
• Content relating to Stephen Harper should be removed. That seems rather tangential considering this is an article on Justin Trudeau.
• "the Liberal government's promises were transformative." Don't really have a suggestion here, so much as a request on the expansion of what does the author mean by this (or alt. we omit it I guess...). Leaving as is makes it rather unclear what the author means.
• Remove the whole last prose (starting where it states "The book's intent"...). Once again, this is an article on Justin Trudeau. That entire prose serves nothing to the actual section topic (being Justin Trudeau's record), and seemingly is there to push the message of the book/promote the book itself.

Leventio (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Replies

• Section header "Publication University of Laval: assessment of Trudeau's campaign promises", change this to "Assessment of campaign promises". The origin of the publication is unnecessary for a header, and we don't need to be told the section pertains to Trudeau.... in an article about Trudeau.

This was the header it was removed because some editors felt the section should be about more than the book. This was an attempt to specify what the assessment was and who carried it out.

• "An publication based on the investigations of 20 respected academics, Assessing Justin Trudeau's Liberal Government: 353 Promises and a Mandate for Change," should be shortened and changed to "In October 2019, the University of Laval published a study by 20 academics that found..." This provides the end date (sort of) for the study, provides the publishing institution (removed in suggestion for section header), and removes the word "respected" (per WP:PUFFERY).

The publication date was July; not sure why we would use another inaccurate date. Its germane too the information that we identify what kind of academics; academics come in a wide range of flavors from lesser to better known. The book uses renowned; I suggested respected a very toned-down alternative. When talking about research who did the research is necessary information in term of assessing the usefulness of the information. I do not believe this toned down version is puffery but necessary context.

• Percent -> Per cent, as this is a Canadian article
• Content relating to Stephen Harper should be removed. That seems rather tangential considering this is an article on Justin Trudeau.

The book deals both with Harper and Trudeau. Given the attacks I've experienced adding anything to the article that even smells positive to Trudeau I felt that noting that Harper's government had also performed well in terms of pledges would add a tone of neutrality.

• "the Liberal government's promises were transformative." Don't really have a suggestion here, so much as a request on the expansion of what does the author mean by this (or alt. we omit it I guess...). Leaving as is makes it rather unclear what the author means.

I can explain further if needed. Context.

• Remove the whole last prose (starting where it states "The book's intent"...). Once again, this is an article on Justin Trudeau. That entire prose serves nothing to the actual section topic (being Justin Trudeau's record), and seemingly is there to push the message of the book/promote the book itself.

I had no interest in promoting the book itself. The content did become about the book rather than a general assessment. The book itself is important because of what its purpose was and for our purposes because it did reference Trudeau. The book is significant per Wikipedia and so could have a section on its own. As long as the content is accurate and hits the main points of the book I am open to discussion. For now locked is best in my opinion given the last few days. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• "This was the header it was removed because some editors felt the section should be about more than the book."

This is precisely why I think it should be generalized. Its ridiculous to think that there should be an entire section in an article about a Prime Minister dedicated to a single publication (when you consider that there are multiple publications on Trudeau thats been published). A section that assesses his premiership is perfectly reasonable, and a generalized title allows for the addition of assessments made in the future (and past if missed), specifying to just this one work would at its worst be promoting that work as something more legitimate than other works on Trudeau.

• The publication date was July; not sure why we would use another inaccurate date. Its germane too the information that we identify what kind of academics; academics come in a wide range of flavors from lesser to better known."

Honestly, didn't really look into the date of publication and who the authors were (I used October 2019 as an example being it is October...). Same goes with the specification of academics, was leaving it on the OP to address what they wanted to refer themselves too. Was more referring to changing the sentence structure to In [date of publication], the University of Laval Press published a study by [academics of whatever field] in which... [retained info from previous edits]; as opposed to the previous suggested sentence I put up there.

• "The book uses renowned;"

Considering that the issue of the use "respected" is about the authors of said book, citing their book that they are "renowned" is self-referencing. Wikipedia's policy makes it pretty clear claims like that need third party verification. But saying that, this wasn't actually my issue because...

• "I suggested respected a very toned-down alternative. When talking about research who did the research is necessary information in term of assessing the usefulness of the information. I do not believe this toned down version is puffery but necessary context."

The main issue I have is puffery, and I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment over its "necessary" use. I'll pose this question to you, what exactly would be the difference in the message if we removed the word "respected" from that prose? To me, that prose without that word imparts on the reader the exact same info it would have if it were in it. Like, it serves no purpose in that prose (imparting no additional info) other than to be a peacock term.

• "The book deals both with Harper and Trudeau. Given the attacks I've experienced adding anything to the article that even smells positive to Trudeau I felt that noting that Harper's government had also performed well in terms of pledges would add a tone of neutrality."

I mean, I sorta suspected thats why it was added, but this article is made for a audience looking up info on Justin Trudeau. Just because the source itself is on the two PMs, does not mean we have to shape this article in the same manner (we just have to make sure the info we are using from the source reflects what it states). I'd still advocate for moving that content to Stephen Harper, which would be much more appropriate of an article to have it in.

• I had no interest in promoting the book itself. The content did become about the book rather than a general assessment. The book itself is important because of what its purpose was and for our purposes because it did reference Trudeau. The book is significant per Wikipedia and so could have a section on its own. As long as the content is accurate and hits the main points of the book I am open to discussion. For now locked is best in my opinion given the last few days. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply those were your intentions, and apologies for that misunderstanding (I meant that the sentence reads like an ad). In saying that though, why did you transition the content from an assessment to about the book? This is an article on Justin Trudeau. As I said earlier, having an assessment on his PMship is perfectly reasonable, having an ENTIRE section on only one publication is completely unreasonable (unless were now just open to people spinning off whole new sections based off single works). That last prose is completely tangential from Trudeau. Focus in the article should be maintained on him.

Leventio (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please unlock this article, as it appears to have been "puffed up", and unfortunately cannot be edited (the day before Canada's election).

On October 15th, User:Littleolive oil made this edit, adding data from a primary source introduced as "An impartial, academically-edited publication". I trimmed that edit here, removed the primary source, and used data from two Canadian newspapers. Littleolive oil has since removed my edit, and now the primary source has its own section, and its authors are "20 respected academics"!

On October 18th, Littleolive oil made this edit and removed a recent quote from a Liberal MP calling Trudeau's past behaviour "deplorable". I added the MPs comment back here, only to have Littleolive oil remove it again here. User:Wisefroggy added the MPs comments back here, only to have User:Moxy remove it without providing an edit summary, followed by an edit war in which all three editors engaged.

Then Moxy reports Wisefroggy for edit warring! Ay, caramba!

Please unlock this article so editors can fix this puffed up mess. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Points of truth:

• The source is not a primary source.
• the sources itself describes the academics as renowned. The so called puffery constitutes the major tenets of the book.
• This is university press and is an academically-driven publication.
• Whether newspapers are acceptable sources for research is another question. Since the research has been complied in a book with commentary the source is not primary in my opinion and so the press articles may be fine but are not the exclusive sources.
• The MP's comment is a twitter comment reused in the press. The comment is untrue. Trudeau did not put on blackface as a Prime Minister which the MP implies. I left in general statements about the twitter comments and the source but removed only the inaccurate statement. I discussed this on the talk page.
• Wisefroggy made 4 reverts, a violation of the 4 revert rule. No one else did. Further Wisefroggy remove sourced content saying in his edit summary the equivalent of, it wasn't sourced. It was sourced. His repeated reverts border on vandalism. Had Moxy not posted a request for help I would have.(I had already put together the post and saw Moxy's post at the last minute.)

I'm to going to beg an admin to maintain protection on this article. I have to trust he or she knows what they are doing. I did the best I could to discuss my concerns and can't say more. And by the way if any politician needs what is going on here to win an election ... heaven help the country. Yeah I'm ticked off when lies are told about me, really ticked off. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• • There can be no consensus with out honesty. Littleolive oil

My position given what I have recently witnessed is that the article should stay locked, and that the decision on the article should remain in the hands of the admin.Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If only they had joined one of the many ongoing chats about that content. It's hard to move forward when we get a fly by revert without joining on going talks. Edit has been contested. ....need to form a consensus....not just edit it back in. Sounds like lockup was a good idea....forcing editors here over just adding back same stuff.--Moxy 🍁 21:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In the past two months, Wisefroggy has made 24 comments on this talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Was not talking about Wisefroggy. Before reverting best see if others have reverted and are talking about the edits in question.--Moxy 🍁 23:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are changes to this article that need to be made, please use the {{Edit fully-protected}} template to request them. As this is obviously a timely topic we should be able to implement non-controversial changes fairly quickly. – bradv🍁 00:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The line "...is the second-youngest Canadian Prime Minister after Joe Clark", should be changed to "...is the second-youngest Canadian prime minister after Joe Clark", per WP:JOBTITLES. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done – bradv🍁 01:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the Ralph Goodale article, there's no longer a deputy leader of the Liberal party. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you perhaps leave a link to that article? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to prove that coverage of this dumb song is WP:DUE and deserves even a blip of notice in this article of 101KiB readable prose. Elizium23 (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-notable as per WP:NSINGLE.--Moxy 🍁 07:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's notable, though. Many WP:RS news outlets have discussed it, and even Trudeau himself tweeted about the song. The song is significant in the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Félix An (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge? Should be outright deleted. Are we going to make a page for the bunch of yahoos song made about Doug Ford too? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Moistly Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the song has enough reviews in RS to justify a short article, especially now that a Reception section has been added. I oppose merging at this point. Just because a song is "dumb" doesn't mean it can't be notable. Weird Al Yankovic's entire notability is based off dumb songs. --Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weird Al intended them to be songs, and he uses his own voice. This - whatever it is - is a fabrication using someone else's words.198.161.4.41 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to 198's comment, Weird Al Yankovic has also had songs that were charting hits, getting him over NMUSIC's charting criteria, and has undertaken concert tours that get him over NMUSIC's touring criteria, and has gotten on the radio, getting him over NMUSIC's radio airplay criteria. The question isn't whether the song is "dumb" or not, it's whether anybody will give a shit about it ten years from now or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it should be merged here. It should be redirected to the relevant portion of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada where it is already mentioned. Alternatively, the event and all of its reaction (including the initial coverage, song, covers, other videos/memes, merch etc.) might be notable enough together, in a similar vein to articles like Fuddle duddle, Shawinigan Handshake, and Elbowgate etc...--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pure junk as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.... no encyclopedic value..... not sure what future generation's can learn off this. Best move on to real content....waste of time.--Moxy 🍁 21:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy^^ Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 20:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe this song would serve any real purpose on this article. Don't merge here. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking Moistly isn't even a song. It's a fabrication using spoken word and autotune. Someone wants it on WP for legitimacy, so they can make money off of it. That's all. 198.161.4.41 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I was the person who started the article. I am in no way connected with the composer of the song, but I just thought that it was notable enough to be documented on Wikipedia for future generations to remember, as many WP:RS news sources have talked about it, and the phrase "Speaking Moistly" itself is very significant regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. In a way, the song acted like a PSA. Félix An (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As Speaking Moistly was kept based on no consensus, should the article simply be (1) Kept at its main page, (2) Merged into Justin Trudeau#Coronavirus pandemic or (3) Merged into COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health?

Pinging everyone involved at the deletion discussion: @BD2412:, @Username6892:, @Devonian Wombat:, @Andrew nyr:, @Dwaro:, @Dbrodbeck:, @Another Believer:, @Superastig:, @Juno:, @Darryl Kerrigan:, @Moxy:, @Cmm3:, @Handoto:, @Kbabej:, @Félix An:, @Bearcat:, @Elizium23:. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep at main page for the reasons I stated at the AfD discussion. If it is merged, it should be merged into COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health, not here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge, the article is perfectly capable of standing on its own, merging it here would consist of Undue Weight and merging to the coronavirus article is simply unnecessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Anywhere but here, it would be a textbook case of WP:UNDUE Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know what the solution is here. It's not a song that accomplished anything significant enough get it over WP:NSONG, so it fails the criteria for whether it warrants a standalone article or not — but it's neither a significant enough aspect of his personal biography to warrant more than one sentence's worth of attention here, nor a significant enough aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic as a whole to warrant more than one sentence's worth of attention there either. Yes, sometimes people just reflexively go "media coverage = GNG" without taking into account the question of whether the topic has any enduring significance that would pass the ten year test or not (do we need an article about his 21-second pause as a topic in its own right either? no.), so sometimes we get bad AFD results on topics that have recently been temporarily newsy — but really the only option I can see here is to leave it alone for now, and relist it for deletion in six months or so. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge, the topic is notable enough for its own article, but this article can link to it. Félix An (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If this type of video is implemented it would set a ridiculous precedent for almost every personality in the world. Thousands of people have had silly remixes and edits of them and by doing this it would imply that we would be doing this with ALL others. It can't even be on the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CocoaGrace (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This one received coverage in many WP:RS news sources though. Félix An (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A brief pile-on of media coverage that lasts for a few days and then dies, with no sustained evidence of permanent notability that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, is not in and of itself an exemption from having to pass any normal notability standard. It makes this the musical equivalent of a WP:BLP1E, not a thing anybody will give a shit about (or even still remember) in 2030. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health is the best fit for now. Merging here doesn't make enough sense to me: it's not like Justin made the video. I agree with Bearcat's comments that any relevance of this video will fade away over time. There's already no new coverage of this song because it already had its 15 minutes of fame. It's been discussed enough within the media to at least have a mention there. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge it survived the AFD for a reason. Juno (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That reason being no consensus, not keep. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The article stands on its own. It has enough RS and coverage to warrant its own article. --Kbabej (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau is not the first relative to a person who previously hold the same post. The 10th Prime Minister of Canada William Lyon Mackenzie King is related to 2nd Prime Minister of Canada Alexander Mackenzie Dplam8 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Both Justin Trudeau and Premiership of Justin Trudeau now have a readable prose of over 55K. Furthermore, their respective Domestic Policy sections [7] [8] and foreign policy sections [9] [10] developed in parallel, and focus on different things. Given these facts, it could be a good idea to eventually merge these sections of both articles, culling the redundancies. Given the length of these articles, we could create 2 new articles on the topic for Justin Trudeau: Foreign policy of the Justin Trudeau government and Domestic policy of the Justin Trudeau government.

Also, if this was to be done, a good resume of Trudeau's domestic legislation can be found at this edit [11]. Mottezen (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

On Donald Trump's page, the last paragraph is largely dedicated to the various corruption investigations he has undergone throughout his term thus far. Given that Justin Trudeau is now facing a third ethics investigation with the WE Charity scandal, and the divisiveness both rhetorically and geographically of the previous election, I think it would be worth separating Justin Trudeau's scandals, Aga Khan, SNC Lavalin, and WE, into a separate paragraph which may also discuss his divisive reputation. 2001:569:7E83:5F00:AC92:29E5:A1A4:C01C (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is undue. Much of the items I have mentioned are already mentioned in the introduction to the article, I am suggesting that the scandals and unpopularity could all be put into a single paragraph as it is done on the page of other scandal-ridden world leaders. The fact that Trudeau is the only Prime Minister to violate ethics not once, but twice, and is likely to be found to have done so a third time, I think this is definitely not undue. 2001:569:7E83:5F00:AD19:D1D7:ACBF:3BC6 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with MelbourneStar. We are supposed to avoid criticism sections. The Aga Khan investigation, SNC Affair, and WE scandal are already mentioned in the article, where they should be. If there is other material to include it should be done in context, and with other content that provides a balanced treatment, not in a section devoted to "criticisms", ethical lapses etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is to avoid criticism sections in part because creating separate sections for criticism introduces the potential for weighted content perhaps unduly weighted. We also are not in the business of comparing one world leader to another. We just add the content per weight in the mainstream. We leave comparisons to the reader. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Macropedia - re:deletion of edit where I added to his employment history. The line which you claim to be npov is:

"He has also held jobs including a nightclub bouncer and snowboard instructor".

I am not sure how to make this sentence any more neutral. If you know how to rewrite this sentence more neutrally, feel free to edit.

His other jobs (teacher, tv actor, "advocate for various causes" (not sure exactly what that is; I added a CN)) are listed; I can see no reason to censor his jobs as a bouncer and instructor. If you feel the need to exclude this, kindly explain your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, while it is true that the Liberal party of Canada received the lowest percentage of a minority government, I think that it is important to note that this happened in 1867 after the Liberal Party of Canada was formed. John A Macdonald received 34.8 percent of the popular vote. This is even noted as the case in the cited article.

While it is technically true that this is the same political party, it should at very least not be included on this page due to being irrelevant to Truedeau himself, or at least removed from the summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DayNightTanaquil (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I added a small addition to Trudeau's "physical appearance" section in his personal life section that his 2001 blackface photo from the Arab Nights themed gala was used in the 2020 film Borat Subsequent Moviefilm as stated in Variety. It was removed on the basis of being "trivia". Given the entire physical appearance section is essentially "trivia" this does not seem a sound reasoning for this removal. Perhaps adding this addition to this section is a bit off (maybe we should add one like "media references" such as in Rudy Giuliani), but his blackface picture used in a major pop culture film does not seem out of the question for inclusion. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't see why we need to mention the incident two times considering it seems to have had zero lasting effect. Just expand a little bit on what's already they're saying ...."the image was used in such and such a movie". --Moxy 🍁 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair, just that we talk about blackface in the "2019 federal election" section and it didn't seem appropriate to add the film that was released a year after the fact in that section. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

By that reasoning it's trivia and there is no need to add it at all. Are we going to add every instance that image is used, and is a Borat film a reliable source for anything, anyway. I think Brad is being generous; I wouldn't add it at all. And as an aside, whether Trudeau has a tattoo of any kind is trivia and not something I'd add either. We have to consider weight. What weight per other mainstream content, in a person's professional life, does this image have. Almost none. If at one point the press made a big deal out of it doesn't mean we have to perpetuate that. It's mentioned in the article and that's probably enough Littleolive oil (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The image hasn't been used anywhere outside of new outlets except for in this major film. Per MOS:CULTURALREFS: "This material is not categorically trivial" and "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article", which had been done. Non-inclusion may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

By your own argument you are saying the image carries very little weight, " The image hasn't been used anywhere outside of new outlets except for in this major film." Who defines major film? I wouldn't consider this film major, by a long stretch, but I am, like you stating an opinion. Is the film a reliable source? Are the boundaries in the film between the factual and the made up clearly delineated. It sure isn't reliable as a source. And I would disagree-the content is categorically trivial. It was an image from a party before Trudeau became Prime Minister. The press did make a fuss about it but that's disappeared oddly enough now that the election is over. There's only so much you can say about this and it's been said and it's been said in this article. And please don't get personal. Whether I like it or not has no bearing on whether to include this content. Three editors seem to agree that the content is trivial and that at most it could be used with content already in the article, which as I said, I consider generous. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Change ‘Queen Victoria Avenue’ to ‘Queen Victoria Street’, in the description of where Margaret Trudeau moved. This is the correct name and moreover even the source articles linked to use ‘Street’ rather than ‘Avenue’. 107.179.238.206 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Under the section about domestic policy, it says 'government pending' instead of 'government spending'

Thanks.  Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi ​, wondering why you removed the Rideau Hall workplace review section of the article?

Thanks, WildComet (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing how this would warrant more then a sentence or two here as there is no govermant scandal or improprieties alluded to. Something in line with international coverage like BBC would be OK in the current section... "He had recommended the appointment of the former astronaut in 2017, though her exit has no immediate implications for his Liberal government."[12]....... definitely shouldn't out way blackface coverage.... but could have some basic coverage in the article.--Moxy 🍁 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon McKenzie King was the maternal grandson on WL McKenzie. Contrary to Justin Trudeau being only relation to any other previous holder of Prime Minister of Canada. 2605:B100:E034:591C:B1ED:A20:7A71:2B38 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The office of the prime minister has released a new updated portrait of the prime minister

^[1], so can someone please update the photo? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabismall (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A cropped version of that portrait would probably be best as it's not only a newer picture from 2021, but also an official image.

According to the website, the image is allowed to be used for "personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means..." (see here). However, I wouldn't know the exact license to upload it with. Maybe someone else can look into this. Randusk (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw that a few weeks ago and I don't believe that image meets WP:NFC, as it stipulates non-commercial. WildComet (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought Wikipedia would count and allow images for "non-commercial" use. If that's not the case, I guess the only way then to use it would be to contact the Office of the PM and request that it be approved for publication, just like for Italy. It would be a perfect use case here though. Randusk (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My removal of this section was reverted by user:Littleolive oil with an edit summary questioning my own POV. The same study is cited prominently in Stephan Harper's article, and gives him an similarly high grade. I think this is a good time to discuss the usefulness of these sort of paragraphs as an introduction to discussing a premiership across the board. I believe the true statements that they "respect a large percentage of their campaign promises" is noteworthy, but not important enough for it to introduce their premiership, as in the present form. It just reads too much like positive spin. Instead, this role should be reserved for... their most iconic policies or action. On the other hand, it would be more appropriate to discuss this study as part of their respective legacies, below the description of what their policies and actions actually were. In Trudeau's case, the study only deals with his first term, so it might be more appropriate to mention this in the section about the 2019 election, if at all in this article.

What do people think of the use we should make of this study? Mottezen (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually no I didn't question your POV. I said, "Be careful. Removing content that seems positive to you as a problem that is reliably sourced may indicate a non- neutral position in your editing." I was suggesting you question your own POV.

This is not spin. Let's differentiate between positive to the subject content or negative to the subject content from spin which is by definition not highly factual. An independent, academic study is not spin whatever it's outcomes. Suggesting that an independent study which concludes with positive-to-Trudeau results (and to Harper) is trivial, spin, and should be removed is not accurate. If we want to add more content here about the study that would be acceptable in my opinion. I don't see any Wikipedia compliant reason for removing the content. I have no problem with placing this content elsewhere in the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

> The assessment found that Trudeau's Liberal government kept 92 per cent of pledges, including complete and partial pledges. When calculating completed and realized pledges, they found Trudeau's government kept 53.5 per cent of their campaign promises. 92% or 54%? Is the 92% supposed to mean the Harper's PC government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectOriented (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

92% includes partially-met pledges and 53.5% does not. Does that help? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay and Djsasso: can we wait on removing the sidebar until more central discussions have concluded? For reference, it appears GoodDay is referring to discussions about removing sidebars/series boxes at WikiProject Unites States Presidents and WikiProject Politics. Having reviewed those discussions, it appears they have not reached consensus that removal of the sidebars is warranted and GoodDay should not be citing them as a reason to override local consensus. For the record, I find the box in this article to be helpful and not too intrusive. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh most definitely, they shouldn't be removed until a consensus to remove is reached. At this point those discussions do not appear to be at that point. And on this page the sidebar is in no way intrusive. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to add them. For that matter there was never a discussion on whether or not to add them, at least, not until now. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus isn't required to add something to a page per WP:BOLD unless there was already a discussion with a consensus to not add. I have not seen such a discussion anywhere and this template has been here for many years. -DJSasso (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I heard that argument from you years ago, concerning another topic we disagreed on. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I was about to make the same argument. Do you intend to revert again? If so, please build consensus for that edit, per WP:BRD. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert again, then be reverted again? I'm not interested in edit wars. Just annoyed that the sidebar was inserted without any discussion to include it. It's a pattern that has occurred across several politician bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove link spam box only seen by desktop.--Moxy- 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Trudeau asks Pope for an apology over church's role in residential schoolsIsn't that strange? These are atrocities that were committed in Canada by Canadians for whatever crazy reasons but least likely religious ones. So how on earth is this primarily the fault of the former bishops of Rome? Of course there should have been more supervision from Rome, but Rome is thousands of miles away, why was there no sufficient supervision from local authorities? It is Mr. TRUDEAU who has to apologize to the Canadian Native People on behalf of the Canadian Government. --Sunsarestars (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the linked article, there are severe ongoing problems for Canadian Native people that Mr. Trudeau doesn't properly address: In Ottawa, NDP Indigenous and Northern Affairs critic Romeo Saganash said a papal apology would do nothing to address the suicide, housing and clean water crises plaguing First Nations. "What the prime minister needs to do is act on the things he needs to act on here in Canada rather than begging the Pope to apologize," he said. "If the Commission has asked for it, then it's important, but the prime minister needs to focus on the crisis that we live as First Nations communities in this country today, tomorrow morning." --Sunsarestars (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Love your username! Some parts of your comments seem oriented toward possible additions to the article, but other parts seem like general thoughts about the subject of this article (you may want to read WP:NOTFORUM). Do you think this article should include some discussion of the church/school issue? I am so far thinking it might be too much of a detail for this broad-scope biographical article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Words and actions: Despite promise of reconciliation, Trudeau spent nearly $100M fighting First Nations in court during first years in power --Sunsarestars (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What does Trudeau know from his father Pierre Trudeau (1919-2000), the former Prime Minister during the time 1968 to 1984. Did he tell him what he thought of their "right" treatment? 9 Canadian leaders who contributed to Indigenous oppression --Sunsarestars (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As of July 1, 2021, Justin Trudeau has cut his hair and shaved his beard, in a return to an older style. His infobox photo should be updated to reflect this appearance. 76.71.157.66 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you know of a freely licensed image with his new appearance, you might upload it and post it here for review. The most recent image I could find on Commons is File:Justin Trudeau 2021 (cropped).jpg from June 23, where he looks very similar to the current image. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

70.50.135.34 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Change current infobox photo - Prime Minister Trudeau - 2020 (cropped).jpg - to Wikimedia Commons photo "Justin Trudeau and Benigno Aquino III November 2015 cropped.jpg". As of July 1, 2021, Trudeau has cut his hair and shaved his beard clean.^[2] His photo should reflect his current appearance. 76.71.157.66 (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Question: But we are supposed to use the latest image Run n Fly (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Response to Question: The 'latest image' shouldn't necessarily be used, but an image that reflects the subject's appearance should be used. The pictures suggested were taken in 2015, but more closely resemble Justin Trudeau now than photos during 2020 - when he neither cut his hair nor shaved his beard. Since, as of June 30, 2021, he has done both these things, his appearance is different, and should be accurately captured.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is not immediately clear that this would be an improvement to the article. You should start a talk page section (not an edit request) to convince other editors. I am mostly on the fence, but I prefer newer images in BLPs to 6-year-old images that coincidentally match the subjects new hairstyle. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)